Who owns the mountains?

piv · Post by **piv** » Aug 14 2002 11:36 pm

: Dig: You can no longer hike Black Mountain in Cave Creek because it is "Private Property". Who owns the mountains? Can one purchase the entire Earth and prosecute everybody for trespassing? How much is South Mountain park going for? What's next??? - piv

olesma · Post by **olesma** » Aug 14 2002 11:48 pm

I could be wrong - but I am pretty sure its been private property for years - they just let people hike on it till now.

Lots of places like that - ranches, large estates, etc.

Sucks for us - but hey, they bought the land - they can do with it as they see fit.

joebartels · Post by **joebartels** » Aug 15 2002 12:35 am

In the words of the great Shalako Anciano

83% of the state is in public hands

I doubt there's much threat of all the lands being divvied up. And yes I had to look that word up

Don't get me wrong I understand what you're saying. I'm sure if I lived fifty miles closer I'd be more concerned. However, I'm not aware of any major threats statewide.

South Mountain is a municipal park. You'll have plenty of oportunity to oppose an election proposition. It's not something that can be sold on eBay, well unless the majority agrees. (if I'm wrong, Randy will surely set me straight)

BTW... Welcome to HAZ!

mtoomeyaz · Post by **mtoomeyaz** » Aug 15 2002 8:52 am

Actually nobody bought the mountain, just all the land around it, and now want to deny access. Just another example of our efficient local government at work. (I was going to say "crack" government, but crack has kinda taken on a whole new meaning lately huh?)

Daryl · Post by **Daryl** » Aug 15 2002 9:09 am

This probably goes in the rant section...

I read that the home owners were upset because the hikers were making noise in the mornings, looking in their windows, and leaving a mess...

If you don't want hikers near your house, DO NOT BUILD A HOUSE ON A HIKING TRAIL!!! DO NOT EXPECT THE WORLD TO CHANGE FOR YOU!

Pinnical peak... The city said they could build houses around the park, but the park would re-open when the houses were done. This was understood when people bought/built their houses, for many it was the reason they moved there. Once people moved in, they fought the re-opening of the park because they didn't want the public to have access to it. Stupidity.

olesma · Post by **olesma** » Aug 15 2002 2:55 pm

Yea, I remember that. Caused a HUGE stink amongst the rock-climbing crowd. Some of the best rock in the valley is up there. I don't recall what the outcome was, but it sure was ugly for a while.

ck_1 · Post by **ck_1** » Aug 15 2002 10:16 pm

olesma wrote:Yea, I remember that. Caused a HUGE stink amongst the rock-climbing crowd. Some of the best rock in the valley is up there. I don't recall what the outcome was, but it sure was ugly for a while.

It was only recently settled, like within the past 4 months...until then, the park had been closed, something like 8 years while they parties involved battled it out...it opened a few months ago with a use plan in place. Due much in part to the work of grassroots groups.

It is excellent rock, urbanly located. Its a great place to climb.

Your post made me consider something...if I had the funds to purchase land that included a mountain, would I allow free use of said land to the masses? I don't think so, not when I'd get sued the second some mullett head hurts themselves.

olesma · Post by **olesma** » Aug 15 2002 11:32 pm

ck1 wrote:Your post made me consider something...if I had the funds to purchase land that included a mountain, would I allow free use of said land to the masses? I don't think so, not when I'd get sued the second some mullett head hurts themselves.

Good point - and I agree. With our litigious society, you can't rely on the good graces of the populace at large. And you certainly can't rely on the inteligence or "horse sense" of the general populace either.

Too many ways to lose what you've worked so hard to achieve. Darned shame really...

Daryl · Post by **Daryl** » Aug 16 2002 9:31 pm

If I bought land with a mountain on it, I'd only share with friends too. But with Black Mesa, the mountain is still county land and open to hiking! The problem is, they sold all the land around the mountain and now there is no way to get to it without crossing private property. They should have either left access to the mountain or made the property owners leave easements for public access (like the beaches in california where they have easements, but lock the gates... another story...)

With the pinnical peak mess, people bought houses there knowing the park was going to re-open. After they were setteled they changed there mind and fought the opening of the park.
I heard it was the same story on camelback mountain years ago.

azrocks · Post by **azrocks** » Aug 17 2002 8:15 pm

[quote="teva"]
South Mountain is a municipal park. You'll have plenty of oportunity to oppose an election proposition. It's not something that can be sold on eBay, well unless the majority agrees. (if I'm wrong, Randy will surely set me straight)
[\quote]
Actually, we lost access to the Geronimo Trail on South Mtn when the
trailhead was sold for development. The Boy Scouts currently allow
hikers to access the Geronimo and Hieroglyphics trails through their
property, but they expect to sell soon as the land is too valuable and
the snooty new neighbors will probably complain about the noise.
The Geronimo could be re-routed to one of the adjacent trail heads,
Holbert or Mormon ??, but it doesn't seem they will do that, as the
trailhead sign has gone from the top end and the Geronimo has
disappeared from the trail maps.

joebartels · Post by **joebartels** » Aug 17 2002 8:28 pm

Was that trailhead in the park or on trust land?